13 September 2011 1:51 PM

After 13 years of Labour gerrymandering, the Boundary Commission's proposals are modest to say the least

The preposterous Chris Bryant, Labour's resident gob-on-a-stick, turned up on TV howling about the injustice of the Coalition's attempts to 'manipulate' the electoral system.

That's rich coming from a prominent member of a party which spent its 13 years in office engaged in full-scale gerrymandering.

Labour tried every conceivable variation of voting methods - AV, single transferable votes, party lists - to rig the results of elections to the devolved parliaments and mayoral races in its favour. After losing the general election, Gordon Brown even promised the Lib Dems he would introduce AV for Westminister elections without a referendum in a cynical attempt to stay in power.

For years, Labour ruthlessly lobbied the Electoral Commission to protect its rotten boroughs in the inner cities. By the time of the last election, British democracy was so far out of kilter that Cameron needed to win two million more votes than Labour simply to draw level in terms of seats.

If Labour and the Tories had polled an identical number of votes, Labour would have ended up with 80 more MPs.

In 2005, the Tories won the popular vote in England, but Labour took 286 English seats while the Conservatives only managed 193.

Slashing the number of Scottish and Welsh MPs will also go some way, though not all the way, towards redressing Labour's institutionalised parliamentary bias against the English.

The modest proposals to reduce the number of MPs to 600 will inevitably result in some high profile casualties. Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

When they get round to announcing the redrawn Welsh constitiency boundaries, let's hope that one of the Welsh MPs erased from the map is Chris Bryant (Rhondda).

"Slashing the number of Scottish and Welsh MPs will also go some way, though not all the way, towards redressing Labour's institutionalised parliamentary bias against the English." - R.L.

This is not a good way to do that. The way to do that is by scrapping the unconstitutional, illegal, 'parliaments'. (The Scottish Parliament etc.)

The modest proposals to reduce the number of MPs to 600 will inevitably result in some high profile casualties. Oh dear, how sad, never mind." - R.L.

- I do mind though. We should be concerned at the reduction in M.P. numbers for two reasons.

One is that less M.P.'s will mean less representation for the voters. (No doubt that's why the establishment want these changes.) It's hard enough now for the people to be represented. A bigger constituency means it's easier for the M.P. to ignore ever larger groups of opinions and the individual voter within his constituency. He or she will also have less time to help individual constituents and attend to smal businesses etc. in his const.

The second is I feel unhappy when I hear of any such changes - you can't trust the authorities anyway. But more important is the issue of M.P.' deciding on constitutional change like this. They're sent there to do our bidding. It's like their arrogant Lords 'reform'. They shouldn't be able to change anything as it's not theirs to change. Boundary changes are only supposed to reflect demographic chenges. i.e. large changes in people moving to another area.

"When they get round to announcing the redrawn Welsh constitiency boundaries, let's hope that one of the Welsh MPs erased from the map is Chris Bryant (Rhondda)." - R.L.

- And all the SNP members. The SNP is even more racist against Britain than the Welsh lot. Although it appears the Welsh politicians are doing their best to catch them up.

When Labour carried out it's boundry lines change in the London boroughs, I unfortunately ended up with John Cruddas as my so called representive. I got a one page flyer telling how honoured he was to be my MP and that was that, no sign of him at all not even at election time, mind you the traffic from Notting Hill throught the city can be heavy at times, I have noticed that since the last election his office in Dagenham has closed and is up for rent so I'm not sure if he still exists

"For years, Labour ruthlessly lobbied the Electoral Commission to protect its rotten boroughs in the inner cities."

I am not sure what this means exactly, but it is the independent Boundary Commission that draws the constituencies not the Electoral Commission.

"If Labour and the Tories had polled an identical number of votes, Labour would have ended up with 80 more MPs.

In 2005, the Tories won the popular vote in England, but Labour took 286 English seats while the Conservatives only managed 193."

So you are basically concluding that FPTP is not a fair system. But you don't like any of the alternatives either! Labour did better because it's voters are distributed mroe efficiently.

Kenny, James J and torieboy - there is a bit of a problem with your Labour's mass immigration gerrymandering conspiracy theory. Immigrants cannot vote in general election, unless they are from a Commonwealth country. Most were from Poland etc.

Do you know why we have constituencies? Let me explain - the original idea of a constituency is that its drawn up to encompass people with similar needs, so an MP can do his/her job representing them properly. This is why constituencies sometimes have fewer people in them than others. We vote MPs to represent us locally in national issues - that's the whole point of it. You can't look at a constituent-representative parliamentary FPTP system from Proportional Representation terms. If you want the raw figures on percentage of the vote to equate to seats, then you should be supporting PR, not these daft constituency changes which mean we get the worse of both worlds (still unfair percentage of vote wise, and now completely unrepresentative of the people living in them).

I'd also like to go on to say the most ideal system under ideal terms, by your own definition, would mean the Tory party you hold in such esteem would have far fewer seats than they current hold.

So either you do support PR and agree these changes are worse for local representation and still unfair for percentage of the vote or you are simply trying to twist this latest insult to democracy because it will keep your favored party in power.

Presumably all political parties understand the first past the post system and all had the opportunity to lobby the Boundary Commission. In which case the Tories surely only have themselves to blame for the predicament you describe?

i really don't understand this new right minds site,,,you are invited to write a comment
and then its not put in,,whats the point of it ?
it needs to be like CIF, you make a comment and in it goes,,,,on this site it's like having to make an appointment ,,,sorry but it is very disappointing.

Right on the button as usual, Richard. Those who manipulated the voting system over the last 13 years have no grounds for complaint here, but, as with so many of their other c..k ups they are oblivious to any wrong doing, and can only shout 'foul' at every turn.

Richard you really should have looked up the word 'gerrymandering' means before using it in your headline. Labour did not redraw the constituency boundaries while in power and the decision to use PR and AV in elections to regional assembly was agreed by all the main political parties.

i and many others also believe that political gerrymandering was behind labour's
mass immigration policy ,,get as many potential labour voters in as possible and worry about the consequences like lack of housing ect later

Don't forget that Labour also, in full gerrymandering mode, allowed unfettered immigration, reasoning that most cheap-labour immigrants would be more likely to vote Labour. It was a blatant attempt to import a population of fully-fledged Labour supporters. Further, Labour decided to maximise their voting impact by dispersing the newly-arrived around the country. Amending constituency boundaries now to the detriment of Labour could be construed as pay-back time.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.